Quote:
Originally Posted by edslunch
I get that, and I find the stats around quality of competition and the like quite compelling. But I equally believe that if you focus too heavily on stats you miss the fact that players have different levels of skill and hockey IQ - something that gets sloughed off as 'making their own luck'. Otherwise you'd have to believe that every player has the same average chance to score on the average shot and that all shot opportunities are equal, something that is patently false.
More to the point, relax and enjoy the ride while it lasts.
|
Actually advanced stats would start revealing which players had higher hockey IQs by demonstrating which players are controlling possession and creating scoring chances.
Again because goals are so rare and so dependent on luck you could easily overlook "unlucky" players and conclude that they had low hockey IQs because they weren't getting "results." Where there would be much more probably explanations such as the coach relying on that player with high hockey IQ to start in his own zone more, to cover for a linemate that was especially bad at possession, to play against the best forwards or simply because his linemates or his goalie weren't cutting the mustard.
This is why I'm continually bewildered by the almost unanimous dismal of basically a whole new set of tools removed of bias to evaluate the game. This helps fans, it doesn't hurt them only insofar as they're so mentally rigid or mindless followers of their own personal orthodoxies that they see stats as a threat to their preferred story of players and teams.